Background The movie, A Few Good Men is a courtroom drama, revolving around the trials of Lance Corporal Dawson, and Private Downey, who end up killing a fellow marine, Private Santiago while administering an extrajudicial punishment called ‘Code Red’. The two marines are charged with murder, however, they register a plea of not-guilty, stating that they were following orders given to them by their superiors, Colonel Nathan Jessup and their Lieutenant, Jonathan Kendrick. Both Jessup and Kendrick deny having given out such orders, do not initially acknowledge the existence of ‘Code Red’ and claim that Santiago was set to be transferred out of the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, right before his death. The movie ends with the Defense, led by Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee and Lieutenant Commander JoAnne Galloway, proving that Code Red orders do exist, and that Colonel Jessup ordered the two Marines to carry out a Code Red on Santiago. Jessup is arrested, and the Marines are cleared of the charge of Murder. They are however found guilty of ‘conduct unbecoming a United States Marine’ and are dishonorably discharged. The movie presents two major ethical issues to the viewer, both of which have interesting implications and demand some investigation: 1. Colonel Nathan Jessup’s justification of a Code Red While this is a comparatively smaller issue, it does deserve some explanation, given that it results most directly from the iconic speech that Nathan delivers near the end of the movie. “You can’t handle the truth!” Jessup shouts at Kaffee, right before confessing to having ordered a Code Red. Jessup gives a moving speech in which he explains the burden of his responsibility. According to him, each decision that he makes is responsible for sav... ... middle of paper ... ...de reliable guidance in such cases. In light of the arguments made above, and in view of the sentence laid out to the Marines, it is my belief that the movie resolves this issue with excessive lenience. A dishonorable discharge is considered to be a serious blemish. But it is my opinion that the sentence administered to the Marines should have carried the due punishment for a charge reduced from murder, such as Aggravated Assault or Battery. After all, it was their inconsiderate action, despite knowledge of Private Santiago’s condition that led to his death. Justice cannot be considered complete if it is not all-encompassing and fair. It is my opinion that by bringing a perspective of the Marines’ actual intentions and the plight of Santiago’s family members into consideration, a case for a slightly stronger punishment deserves to be made from an ethical standpoint.
Accountability is a subject that ranges through every spectrum of life. From simply knowing your food supply by opening the refrigerator, to knowing the exact amount of ammunition a military convoy has at its disposal, down to each individual round. When we know what the situation is, and hold each person responsible for they're actions in the situation, that is the concept of accountability at its root. If we are not to hold each other responsible for each of our own actions and choices then we will never be able to correct problems and concerns, which will make us fail as a whole because the smallest individual action can account for the gravest of concequences. In this essay I'm going to show how important accountability is in the everyday life of a United States Marine. I will do this by presenting the textbook definition of accountability then dissecting it and defining it in my own words. I will then show you how the military practices accountability with everything it does; by applying a system that is similiar to that of checks and balances. I will tie into this the Incident that occurd in 29 Palms, CA on August 31, 1988, where the failure to have accountability of all the marines on Base ultimately resulted in the negligent death of one Marine, and the ruined careers of those who were in charge of him. Lastly I will go down to the basic level of the Marine Corps: the life of the individual Marine and how he can, and naturally does to a point, apply accountability to his every action, be it on or off duty.
My Review of Full Metal Jacket In Stanley Kubrick’s film Full Metal Jacket, the emphasis is spotlighted on the carnage of boot camp and the soldier’s life in Vietnam. The life of a soldier is not an easy one, as it requires great diligence and much sacrifice to ensure the safety and freedom to all those who are afraid and those who seek it. Stanley Kubrick makes sure that we see the harshness and ugliness of the Vietnam War as it was made to be seen. The movie starts with the life of boot camp, getting marines ready to be sent and fight over in Vietnam. The relationship between Private Joker and Private Pyle appears when the Drill Sergeant Hartman makes Private Joker the squad leader. Private Joker, is to make certain that Gomer Pyle cleans his act up and bring an end to the burdens that Pyle has put on the whole squad. Although Private Joker is trying his best to clean up the Private Pyle’s mess, he has met his match, and ultimately sees Pyle as a problem. During the scene where everyone in the squad prepares to beat Pyle with bars of soap wrapped in towels it shows that Private Joker is somewhat hesitant at first, but eventually hits Private Pyle multiple times with heavy blows. Analyzing the relationship between the two privates can be said that Private Joker was trying to help Private Pyle as much as he could, until Private Pyle suddenly breaks and it is made clear when Private Pyle is talking to himself while he is cleaning his rifle. Yes boot camp can be living hell for those who are psychologically unfit and not able to cope during times of great stress, and this can often make certain people “snap”. Stanley Kubrick does a fine job focusing on the stresses of boot camp, especially as this is a time of war and thousands of ...
Due to Jones’ entry, the military brought charges against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for, “releasing classified information and conduct detrimental to military security.” At the hearing Corporal Jones’ attorney argued that the content of his client’s blog was, “protected by the First Amendment because it dealt with his own impressions and ideas on a matter of public interest.” He also claimed that, “it was not Jones’ intent to undermine military security but that his account of the firefight and its consequences was an act of by his comm...
This Code mingled old laws with new ones (Pound 2002). Under the new, commanding officers retained much power. This includes the responsibility to convene court-martials and choose jury panels. New checks were introduced, however, and these were similar to civilian procedures. The new Code created a formal appellate review system, which included the US Court of Military Appeals, now known as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. More importantly, it expanded protections. It gave serviceman the right to remain silent and to be informed that any statement could be used against them at court-martial. The Code also gave them free military defense counsel in serious court-martial trials. From 1968 to 1983, court-martial t...
... when conducting the interview with Be Nguyen he explains a story were a Green Beret held off a Northern Vietnamese squad all alone. We can only assume that these stories might be true because the Green Berets are mysterious and shrouded in such secrecy. With the propaganda spread and the stories that we hear from veterans the American public can really feel the ominous aura around the Special Forces.
He has made one final promise to hundreds of Vietnamese who crowded the US Embassy grounds on the final day of the evacuation—perhaps the last American promise offered to the men and women who threw in their lot with the wealthy, well-armed foreigners. “Nobody is going to be left behind,” he told them. One of the Vietnamese who is there remembered his words: “When you are in the American Embassy, you are [on] American soil. I promise [that] me and my soldiers will be the last ones to leave the embassy.” With 420 Vietnamese still waiting but with orders from Washington, Herrington assures them that a big helicopter is coming for them and then excuses himself to go “take a leak.” Scurrying off into the shadows, he sneaks into the embassy building and onto a helicopter, abandoning those to whom he’d just given his word.
Captain Earnest Medina was in charge of giving orders to the Charlie Company and in the early evening of March 15th a meeting was called. CPT Medina told the company that the next morning they would be moving into My Lai and attacking Vietcong forces there. He told them that all the civilians would be at the market or would have already been moved out by the time that the soldiers arrived to carry out their planned attack. He said all that would be left in the village would be the Vietcong of the 48th battalion and Vietcong sympathizers. It was never clear what CPT Medina had said to do in the event of coming across civilians. Medina claimed in court that he had told the GI’s not to kill women and children, to us...
... Redford shows that every character in the movie is highly depended upon their moral decisions to determine their outcome. Charles Van Doren was persuaded by the producers of the show to make decisions which when against his ethics and morals. Herb Stempal was also pressured by both producers, Enright and Freedman, to “take a dive” in the show, Twenty-One, and allow Van Doren to become the show’s new champion. He had to make a decision which conflicted with his ethics and morals. Richard Goodman also thought ethically when he made his own decisions. He wasn’t persuaded by the producers, like Van Doren and Herb Stempal. Robert Redford demonstrates that decisions of the main character in the movie were influenced by their ethical thinking. Some of these characters made decisions based on their ethics and morals and some didn’t, which lead to inevitable consequences.
After all, I would like to pullout my feeling after I watched than analyzed this movie, it is intimately interested the ethical issues represented in the movie and the way it was resolved with. More interestingly, I started to keep my mind wide open as my eyes are when I watch a cartoon movie, and I ongoing to address ethical issues more than before, and might discover the deep main message and the targeting marketing to each movie I watch since.
During the Vietnam War, the first platoon (approximately forty men) was lead by a young officer named William Calley. Young Calley was drafted into the US Army after high school, but it did not take long for him to adjust to being in the army, with a quick transition to the lifestyle of the military, he wanted to make it his career. In high school, Calley was a kind, likable and “regular” high school student, he seemed to be a normal teenager, having interest in things that other boys his age typically had. He was never observed acting in a cruel or brutal way. In Vietnam, Calley was under direct order of company commander, Captain Ernest Medina, whom he saw as a role model, he looked up to Medina. (Detzer 127).
As I stepped in, I heard Sgt. Crowley ask for the gentleman’s information which he stated, “NO I WILL NOT!” The gentleman was shouting out to sergeant that the sergeant was a racist and yelled that “This is what happens to black men in America!” As the sergeant was trying to calm the gentleman, the gentleman shouted, “You do not know who you are messing with!”
“Gentlemen, Your Verdict”, by Michael Bruce tells the story of a submarine that gets hit with a mine and gets stuck at the sands of Steins Point. Because of lack of oxygen that is needed for all of his men to survive, Lt. Commander Oram must decide if he will let his crew die, or sacrifice the majority to save a few. Oram decides to kill 15 of his men and save the lives of the remaining 5 men that had families. Is Oram guilty of murder, or is he innocent? Some might argue that he is guilty because he killed his crew members, and by law—whatever the case may be—that is considered murder. However, he is innocent because he did what he had to do under those circumstances and because of that, he was able to save at least a few lives.
This film really focuses on the characters. Their thoughts, anger, distress, and mistakes become part of your mistakes. This deals with a father’s s priority and how he will achieve that priority by using unethical ways like torturing an innocent man. Bringing up child abduction and torture are
In conclusion, director Peter Berg does an excellent job at directing this film by implementing so many different and creative techniques to tell a story that might otherwise be incorrect. This real life memoir was presented to tell the tale of Four Navy SEALs that put their lives on the line to defend their country. The uniqueness of the elements and the way they are used brought out the realistic nature of morality, brotherhood, and honor. These elements showcase the mental and physical hardship that soldiers endure.
Ethics are a constant issue that are raised when embarking on a film, particularly when filming a documentary. It is most important to consider the subjects in the film and what content will be portrayed to the audience. The ethical choices that occur within each documentary mode are somewhat similar but manifest differently within each mode. There is a careful balance between choices of power and style that needs to be created between the filmmaker, the subject and the audience in order to produce an ethically sound film.